next on american history tv the author of the book reconstructionist in size history. says that the reconstruction period after the civil war promised to bring the promise of african american equality, in part due to the poor leadership of president andrew johnson. >> thank you for cosponsoring us and allowing us to go sponsored the event. thank you for the book. it's very nice. if my name is jeanne barr, here on behalf of representing the

national war museum, i'm the former chair of the national civil war museum, which is in the here. mission of the museum as disservice national center this sponsor learning of the civil war through artifacts, and a balanced presentation of the african american people struggle through healing. the intriguing thing about the museum, is that there are over 24,000 printed items and 34,000 items of the artifacts of the war, the tell the tragedy of slavery, items from 1861 to 65, as well as postwar items to tell the story of the american peoples story. struggle. they all function as one piece of the tapestry of the tremendous struggle this nation went through. we are pleased that we worked out an agreement with the city that we believe is very

positive for the people of the city and for the museum, that we keep the museum as a centerpiece of a reserve revitalize reservoir park. i'm pleased to introduce the introduce the speaker tonight. i'm pleased to see scott here. scott and i have in the past talked about the value of 19th century political, and 21st century politics battle. >> they're about the same thing. >> scott as worked in broadcasting in both radio and television and now in social media for more than 36 years. currently lamar is the host of delhi's marc top, news and public affair program on the fm and 93.3 fm. smart talk is one pennsylvania associated press awards every year since his debut in october, 2008. lamar has won more than a dozen

pennsylvania souls impressed awards since 2000, as been nominated for five not mid-atlantic any awards. scott will be interviewing -- director of civil war studies at gettysburg. college is a three-time winner of the lincoln prize, he is the author of abraham lincoln redeemer president, lincoln's emancipation proclamation the end of slavery in america, like in a very short introduction, fateful lightning, and one of my personal favorite books on gettysburg, gettysburg, the last invasion which when the guggenheim prize in military. history please welcome scott and gals here. for (applause) >> reconstruction. right from the very beginning of the book dr. king also, you called reconstruction the ugly

duckling of american history. why? >> because it is. because it is. the era in american history that we like least to talk about. partly it's because reconstruction is what's regarded so widely as a failure. and we don't like to talk about failures. and also has the misfortune so to speak, of coming as a trough between two very high regions in american history. on the other side of reconstruction as was the gilded age on the one side is the civil war. a gilded age is not quite is dedicated to as the civil war. a gilded age has a bit more modeling to it. but nonetheless, it is identifiable, and we can talk about characters in the gilded age as though they really had

some pizzazz in sparkle, and even if they are as they sometimes were crux, at least they were crooks on a grand scale. a reconstruction seems to be a tale of missed opportunities, sordid adventures, a failure of vision, and especially of a piece that was lost after a war that had been won. and a piece that had been lost with dramatic and painful consequences for the people who are the most the most vulnerable that, is the newly freed slaves. we had poured out four years of blood to bring the union back together, to justify our system of government, and to abolish what really was the birth

defect of the united states, which was slavery. and after having done all that, we spent the next 12 years absolutely botching every way of implementing that. and when the soldiers walked away and the politicians walked away and the rioters walked away from reconstruction, it was something that we didn't enjoy talking about, and we have not enjoyed talking about it since. it's a little boy like that relative who we all know and when we have family get togethers a thanksgiving your christmas, we get -- it's always the relative that everyone knows about but no one wants to talk about. that's what reconstruction is in american history. >> one of the most fascinating parts of the book, you just said it was a lost opportunity, but one of the most fascinating

parts of the book is that lost opportunity is even being felt today. >> oh yes. >> 150 years later. you mentioned a lost opportunity for a racing slavery and racial inequities. talk about aptly. >> at the end of the civil war, we suddenly had a population of 3.9 million human beings who had been slaves and who, thanks to the war and the emancipation proclamation and the 13th amendment were no longer slaves. but what were they? well, to be a non slave is to be in a negative category. but did not being a slave anymore be convey anything beyond that? that was to be the great question. we didn't come up and answer that in a particularly graceful or effective way.

part of the reason we didn't is because we weren't entirely sure how to go about it. there was no midtown scholars bookstore in 1865 where someone can go buy a copy of reconstruction for dummies. which would have templates, this is how you do it, this is the steps, it's not like the navigation system in my car in a thick book that is supposed to walk you through all the steps of getting from place to place. it was nothing like that. there have been reconstructions after civil wars in the past, but they didn't offer us in a whole lot of way in direction. one extreme of civil war and with a lot of conquest, and a lot of conquest met the took to people who lost and you executed them. then there were civil wars that were ended with leniency.

for example, caesar ending the roman civil wars, where he did with leniency and look where it got him. then there were the english civil wars, there were the religious wars, which were civil wars in france and other places in europe, in the 15 hundreds. they offered varying ways of coming at this business of ending a war and reconstructing a nation. none of them looked particularly attractive. so here we were confronted with this question of reconstruction, and from the very beginning, we were dogged by a number of questions we weren't sure and how dancer. one of them was, what is the status of the freed slave? another connected with that was, what is the status of the former confederate states? are they in the union, are they out of the union? abraham lincoln always insisted that they were in the union,

whether they like to their. not the reason he said it was not so much because he loved having them there but because he always insisted that succession was illegal and constitutional and possibility. wall is a legal unconstitutional in possibility, you couldn't. levy were still estate. then how are you worried to be treated. so questions like this cluster around, about what to do with the end of the war, and we don't have a lot of ready made answers in front of us. the people who did think they had already made answers stepped forward and then often had those answers blow up in their face. >> in the book, you say that abraham lincoln actually had been planning for reconstruction since as far back as 1863, even though as you also mentioned, lincoln when he mentioned the word reconstruction which was rare, that there were always some describing words.

for some reason, he didn't like the word reconstruction, maybe it has something to do with what you just explained. but when lincoln was assassinated, andrew johnson the vice president becomes president. lincoln had in mind what reconstruction would probably look like. andrew johnson, not so much. how much of a key wasn't to this lost path of reconstruction that lincoln wasn't there to enact it as was andrew johnson? >> well scott, i don't think there's any question that is asked a more often than, what would've happened if lincoln had lived? and of course, there's no real way to know that, because lincoln as a person and as a politician always tended to places cars very close to his chest. he was a very rest reticent, shot mouths man, as his friend davis described him. he was like denim personal

matters, and was like that on political matters, and he was certainly like that with reconstruction. he didn't like to bind himself to securely to what might turn out to be a mill stone. he wanted to be free to experiment and he did try to experiment with various approaches to brianna grading the southern states back into the union. he tried that in north carolina, he tried in arkansas, tried and louisiana. >> actually setting up governments? >> renewed governments, there that would agree to eliminate slavery. and, move forward to reintegrating the states into the union. but in most of those cases, the results came a proper on the personalities he had to rely upon. -- and north carolina for example. union forces, occupy the outer banks of north carolina early in the war. pushed inland, and thought they had conquered enough north

carolina territory. to justify setting up, of a union estate government. we'll, to that position, as military governor this, union state government, we can appoints edward stanley. big mistake. stanley turns out to be, much more interested, in a gray shading himself, with the north carolina population. and he is, and carry out lincoln's initiatives, that especially is true, on -- emancipation eventually, they come to disagreement, stanley resigns, lincoln does not appoint a replacement. in louisiana, he keeps trying to find, people who will implement, a settlement, and louisiana. he keeps offering letters of, advice he keeps routinely being ignored. arkansas, probably offered him the best way forward. but that was also a fairly small scale project. time and again, lincoln has plans and expectations about

reconstruction. and circumstances defeat them. would he have been more successful? if he had lived? be on april 15th 1865? that is an interesting question. we often assume, the answer to the question, what will happen if lincoln had lived, we have been somehow, something much more triumphant. and, really the truth is, it's hard to imagine how you could have done worse than andrew johnson. but, even so. there were limitations, which might have -- even abraham lincoln. one of which, quite clearly, was time. lincoln, is sworn in, to office for his second term. might march 1865. that means he will only be an office, and an 1869. that is not a whole lot of time, in which to, push forward. a reconstruction. if he had observed, the general rule of two terms, then he would have left office in the spring of 1869. and reconstruction might still have only been in its infancy. we might not have really have

had an answer, at all. if lincoln had lived. >> i have to tell you that, in reading the book, andrew johnson is often ranked as one of the worst u.s. presidents. you often hear, behind his name, was impeached. fell short of conviction by one vote. but, you really learn, a lot about the mistakes that andrew johnson, made. and, he had a republican legislature. and, he vetoed bill after bill after bill, that, the vetoes were, overruled. >> andrew johnson was, and some respects, a mistake from the start. because nobody ever expected him to be president. why was he in the vice presidency, to begin with? well, he was selected as lincoln's running mate. for the 1860, for campaign. because, in 1864, the

leadership of the republican party, decided that they want to demonstrate, that they were, a coalition. that they were a big tent, who was willing to take in, sympathetic patriotic democrats. that was, not going to take a hard hand, at the south. so that, southern states, the confederacy could take up, -- and notice that hey might not be a bad idea,. in other words, johnson was going to be a token. that's a peaceful resolution, to civil war, was in view. and that lincoln's republican party, was not going to behave, like let a say, the restoration of charles the second. after the english civil wars. where you chop off everybody's head, and where you hang all -- and you do nasty things like. that anything, that could bring the conclusion of the war, a little closer that would entice the confederates, to give up,

stop fighting. stop the bloodshed. , that was looked upon as one of the crime goals. so, heritable hamilton, who was lincoln's vice president for first time, is dropped. with a nice little. thank you and it is, place substituted andrew johnson. johnson is, in some respects, if you had met him for the first time, you would think you are looking at a second version of abraham lincoln. because, here was someone who had started out, poor. who had worked, his way up. he had been at taylor's apprentice. he gets involved, in politics. he gets elected mayor, of this town. and he gets elected governor, of tennessee. then he gets elected to, the united states senate. and, he is a loyal unionist. when the southern states secede from the union, 1961, johnson's own state of tennessee, of course succeeds, but he refuses to recognize this. he bravely, stays at his, folks

in united states senate, defying, the secessionists. in fact, when tennessee is reoccupy, it by federal courses -- lincoln appointed johnson as military governor of tennessee. and, johnson's service, as military governor of tennessee, is really one of the few successes, along that line. that lincoln can boast. so, choosing johnson, to be his running mate, seemed like the perfectly logical thing. until, it turned out that it wasn't, a perfectly logical thing. they started to see signs of, this very early on. johnson, shows up for his inauguration. , first of all he wrote to lincoln and said, do i really have to come? for the inauguration. that really was not the question, he wanted to be asking. of course, he said, you have to be here. so, various. is the fourth of, march 1865. he shows up, and he has, a

cold. bronchitis perhaps. he has been self medicating himself. with whiskey. we. he is sworn into office, an senate chamber. and delivers a long, rambling address. that makes a very clear from the start, that the man is. drunk, it's so bad that handle handle, and behind him has to tug on the coattails of his morning coat. to say, you are done. you are done. going out into the portico, of the capital, to be sworn in himself, lincoln says to the master of ceremonies. don't let johnson, speak outside. , and, several weeks later, when lincoln is in richmond, as the confederacy is collapsing upon itself. he's asked, whether, it would be an interesting idea, for johnson to come down to richmond, and he and lincoln, meet together, and have a top there. lincoln says, not all think so.

>> this johnson, he says, is a strange man. >> no one expected, andrew johnson, to be president. that is not why he was put -- but there, on the morning of the 15th, of april 65 -- there, he is. the 17th president of the united states. and, at first, people think that they have the man they really wants. because, here after what was a man, who was a loyal unionists. and, here's someone they could expect to take a hard hand, to these vile secessionist traders. and, for about, six weeks, that is what johnson looks like. until the 29th of may, 1865, when he begins issuing, his first amnesties. and begins issuing proclamations, setting up new state governments. in the defeat of confederacy. >> explain why he had to,

deliver those amnesties? because, part of the defeat is south, was only certain people were allowed to serve, and these governments. >> that's right. because here you have, the defeated states of the confederacy. if you are operating on lincoln -- 's which johnson thought he was, these are states which have never left the union. never left it, because, secession is illegal and in constitutional possibility. well, then, the next thing that the state should do is set up, new state governments, new state constitutions, and send representatives and senators, to washington. just like, good upstanding states ought to do. well they did that on the basis of his proclamations, they authorize him to meet -- and they did. that by their own lights. the first thing they did, in the process, was then to turn around, and elect, as a new representatives of senators, 13, ex confederate generals. and the former vice president,

of the confederacy. but in other words, they turned around. and went back right into place. the same political leadership, that had taken them into the war. you can imagine, with what's joy, republicans have just gone through four years of civil war, greet the prospect, of now sitting, and congress. with people who only, weeks and months before, had been trying to erect the nation. that did not go down, terribly well. and, what was worse, but was worse, with the abolition of slavery, also goes the abolition of the three fifth clause, remember the three fifths? clause constitution? the southern states, wanted to. count their slaves towards representation, and congress. it would swell the number of representatives they had their. and, the members of the constitutional convention, folded arms and said -- at which point, they had to come to a compromise, because

what you see was that the someone is wanted to count five fifths of their slaves. , to which representation in -- congress compromise they got, was that no. only three fits. now, slavery has been abolished. so there goes a three fifths clause. no need for that anymore. that means, that all the black population of the confederate states, can now be counted as five fifths increase the representation of the southern states of congress. but, without giving a single one of those black people vote, meant consider this prospect. that meant, that the former confederate states, not only be coming back into the union, with the same political leadership they have before, but they would be coming back, with the increased representative clout, in congress. they would have more representatives, in congress, than they had before. , that is going to threaten, the republican. majority. in congress, and that means,

that with this added clout, these representatives can come back, in congress. and they can do all kinds of, they can repeal. all the republican wartime legislation. about national banking, about specific railroads, about tariffs. in fact, they could even, with this added political heft, they could even vote to assume, the confederate war dead. so, if you are northern taxpayer, who has been paying taxes, to suppress this rebellion, guess what? you now face the prospect of, paying for the confederacy's ward it. the war debt of the confederate racked up? trying to destroy the union? you as a union taxpayer, have to start paying that. all that, seems to be perfectly pot plausible. under johnson's proclamations. because johnson fought, but we're gonna be doing this as quickly as we can. at that point, republican

members of congress, might have objected, there's only one problem. congress was not in session. the new congress, the very knife congress, would not assemble until of the summer of 1865. so, johnson, actually has a fairly long breathing spell. with which to get all of these plants, up and running. it's not until, the week before congress convenes, that republicans caucus together, and determine that they're not gonna put up with this. first thing they do? is they agree, that they do represent -- new representatives from the southern states, will not be seated. the clerk of the house of representatives, will not see them. of course, congress has the power. to determine, who will sit. and its own ranks. that is the first, things second thing, a civil rights bill to enfranchise, the black voters of the south. we are going to turn things around, completely.

and then, by march of 1867, a series of reconstruction acts, which will, entirely reconstruction of the way, that the state government of the, south are going to operate. , so this is the republican response, in congress. to the threat that is posed here. and, what is andrew johnson do in the face of it? every single one of those measures, that they passed, he vetoes. civil rights bill? vetoes it. a bill to extend friedman's bureau? which provided aid and assistance for the free slaves? vetoes it. you name it, he starts to veto. it if it crawls, he vetoes it. at first, congress is not used to this. they are not used to overriding vetoes. but then, they start to sense, that, if they don't do something, if they don't stand up to johnson. all is lost. so, they override.

they override the, and then, beyond vetoes, they think we can't take the chance. even of legislation. because, we can pass the statute. he can veto it, we can override the veto. it's still just a statute. what happens in the next congress? next congress could be next congress penalized action that we passed in could be repeals veto this congress. a statue that we passed in this there are congress. there are certain things we are going to certain things they have to set in would have to set in concrete, the only way to do concrete that, it's and the only to amend the way to do that is constitution. to amend the and, it's constitution. from that, and it's from that the that we see we see the the 14th and then the four we -- 15th amendments emerge. johnson of course wants to fight them to the nail. the more he fights them, the more ridiculous he looks. because, however johnson might have wanted to pass him self off as a second lincoln, all you had to do is watch andrew johnson in public, especially after that drunken inaugural. johnson would often

self-destruct himself. speaking in public was not his long suit. he went on what he called a swim around the circle. this is this was supposed to be a visit to the city of chicago, though early was to chin up votes for the next congress sympathetic to himself. he makes an idiot of himself from start to finish. by the end of it, people are openly heckling him. getting his diner is not difficult to do and he obliges them with one foolish comment after another. in the end, andrew johnson really torpedoes his own ship. >> you mention the courts, the 14th and 15th amendment. the role of the court in the supreme court in the federal courts is probably one of the least known aspects of reconstruction, but it played a big role and again, we go back

to the impact felt even today. >> very much so. the supreme was not friendly to the lincoln administration during the civil war. the chief justice of the united states during the civil war was robert berke tony, this was the man who was the author of the dred scott decision in 1857. try me said to set himself at the very beginning of the civil war to oppose the lincoln administration domestic could. he tries to interfere with lincoln's rid of heaviest corpus. lincoln ignores. it will tiny really believed his responsibility as chief justice to be was that the judiciary, now we think as we are taught in civics class or governments class were taught in the american constitutional

system that there are three branches, is a judicial, executive and -- the their checks and balances and these three operate with separate powers. but they operate in a balanced fashion, we wish. too often the case the executive bolton hailed, of the legislative bolts ahead, well up to the 18 fifties the executive and the legislative and not been successful in dealing with the slavery controversy. so an 1857 what roger tawney proposes to do with his decision is will largely had, and the judiciary will solve the slavery issue. of course it doesn't solve at all. but that was his view of things. the civil war sends the supreme court into something of a -- once lincoln ignores tawney

attempt to meddle on the attempt of ideas corpus, the supreme court does not have a lot to do during the civil war, there are some important cases to be heard, but for practical cases, the supreme court is comparatively silent. but once the war is over, and also once the way once roger tawney is dead in 1864, the court rages right back into that path of insisting on its supremacy. the new chief justice salmon chase had been lincoln secretary the treasury. someone chase was a and he had more ambition and all of lincoln's cabinet combined. so much so that somebody made a comment one-time, that salmon chase suffered from defective theology. he thought there was a fourth person in the trinity? laughter none of that

dissipates when chase becomes chief justice, and when the war ends, chase goes right back to the idea of the supreme court having the last say and governmental affairs. he does it right away in 1866 with acts void the mulligan, and he does it with the chase court and the court subsequent to chase court in the mid 18 seventies. the courts decide that there's the 14th and 15th amendment, but we will interpret on how they were to be done. in the beginning of cases beginning with the slaughterhouse cases in the 18 seventies, running up to u.s. versus cruickshank, in 1883, and civil rights cases. , what's the civil court does is effectively neuter what the 14th and 15th amendments were intended to do, which for all practical purposes means neutering what the 14th and 15th amendments did for reconstruction.

because the 14th and 15th amendments were really a living, beating heart of what reconstruction should have been. and the supreme courses court cases, in the name of exerting judicial importance, effectively take reconstruction and hold it up in the air by the throat until it is fixed the aids. >> one of the ways they did that was giving to states power over implementing part of the 14th and 15th amendments. >> let me give you an example. in the 14th amendment, we are told, 14th amendment is something of a grab bag amendment, because it has five sections and actually address completely different questions. what is held today to be the most important part of the 14th amendment is the first section, which talks about citizenship, and the privileges and immunities of citizenship. strange as it is to say this,

up until the civil war, there had never been a clear definition of what citizenship was in the united states. the constitution talks about citizenship in five places. in three of those places, it talks about citizenship of the united states. for instance, the president has to be a natural born citizen of the united states. but then the other occasions it talks about the citizens of the states, implying that there is a kind of dual track citizenship. citizenship of the united states and citizenship of the states. constitution doesn't define them. it doesn't define their relationship. so for a long time people are puzzled over exactly what's citizenship is abuzz to me. the 14th amendment is gonna settle. 14th amendment says, citizenship is based on where you are born, and what is

called the use solace. roger tiny tried to define citizenship on birth and blood tawney because he said the black people not just slaves but black people in general, cannot be citizens of the united states. he was appealing to what is called the use of sanguinary's. the use of sanguine as went out the window with the 14th amendment. 14th amendment categorically says that there is a citizenship of the united states and it is based on those who are born in the united states. now this means that those 3.9 million slaves were born in the united states are by the 14th amendment and by the use of solace our citizens of the united states and therefore enjoy all the precip privileges of that thereof.

not with slaughterhouse cases, not with cruickshank that didn't solve those things. with those two cases, the supreme court revives this idea of dual citizenship. and they say there is a citizenship of the united states but then there is also citizenship of the states. this is what the citizenship of the united states does in this is what the citizenship of the status. the citizenship of the states will it surprise you? the citizenship of the states is what determines who gets to vote. well, that effectively delivers into the hands of the former confederate states the power to determine who is going to have voting rights. you can be very sure that what that meant was no black people. and unfortunately slaughterhouse and cruickshank give legal sanction to that

there's a bright line you can bought draw from slaughterhouse and cruickshank all the way to the most infamous decisions in 1893 that's plenty versus fact isn't with his versus separate forces equal and recognition of jim crow statutes. >> so those statutes indirectly lead to all the years of discrimination, violence, everything that occurred in the south up until the civil rights era. >> that's right. in fact it makes it very difficult in the civil rights era in the 19 fifties, because you have these stamped supreme court opinions are important questions like that. a great deal of the advances in terms of civil rights in the 19 fifties of the 1960s had to be done through other provisions by the commerce clause in the constitution. because cruickshank, slaughterhouse has closed off those possibilities. >> you do write that there were

four positives that came out of reconstruction. what were the? >> the sounds like a quiz. my own book. one thing certainly that was done right in reconstruction was that we did in fact past the 14th amendment and 15th amendments. the 14th especially about citizenship. you can't go back to dred scott, you can't deprive black people or people of any color or race or religion or ethnicity or language you can't deprive them other citizenship on that basis. if they are born on united states soil, they are citizens of the united states. the 15th amendment likewise, forbidding at least on the federal level any distinction on the basis of color for voting rights.

those are break waters, constitutional break waters which are not going to be washed away. they can be gone around, and they do managed to get around, but they can't be washed away. they're also some other extraordinary ex complements in reconstruction. one is that whatever else we did wrong, at least we did one thing right, and that is we did not make a bloody mess of it. by a bloody mass, yes there was a lot of bloodshed, but what i mean is that we did not inaugurate the kinds of judicial killings that you have seen in the wake of other kinds of civil war's. one of the ironies, bitter ironies of reconstruction is, that the blood that was shed was actually shed by the victors rather than by the vanquished. but we did not hang the confederate leadership. we do not take robert e. lee or jefferson davis and hang them.

we did not indulge in that type of public vindictiveness. it is well that we didn't because what that might have generated would have been an ongoing sea of insurgencies. that would've made the civil war look like some sort of prelude. think what might have happened if for instance after up an attucks, if lee had not been given the terms that he asked for not some death camp the parole if liu been offered anything but that, he could've easily with one returned was army and said, boys had for the hills and fight it out there. that could have dragged on reconstruction for decades. we might still be fighting insurgencies. and there were insurgencies of that sort that you can see in a

destructive way, in places for instance in the 19th century and the russian caucuses. those kind of long term insurgencies could've destroyed this country. so yes, we paid a price, we paid a price for race riots in new orleans in 1966. we paid a price for the ku klux klan. at least we did not pay a worst price. and we could have. we could be at war, we could be at each other's throats even today. tsa elliott once said that there are some civil wars that never and. i remember reading just few years ago a book by david reef, who had been in journalist in bosnia during the convulsions of the 1990s. he was going as a journalist to interview one of the bosnian

leaders, and as he was leaving, one of the staff members of this bosnian leader slipped a piece of paper into his hands, and when he left the open it up and read and one thing was written there. 13 58. 13 58. this was the battle of this was the kosovo. battle of here kosovo. are people in the here are people in the 1990s, who believe 19 nineties that they are still who believe fighting they are still, fighting a civil war a civil war from from 600 years 600 years before. before. could we be doing the could we be doing the same today? quite same today? possibly. quite possibly. yes, we did a bevy of yes we did things. a bevy of things there wrong in were some things, reconstruction that there were at least some things that we there are some things we did right did right. . >> doctor dr. allen gills oh, alan gallows its author of the is author of new book, the new book reconstruction and reconstruction concise history concise history. ,, and i know there are a lot of i know there are a lot of questions questions out there. out there i was wondering how. all tell you you want to handle this, have someone? >> we're gonna. >> transition to audio we're gonna secure, night we step up to the transition to an

audience q&as if you have a question, microphone. please step up to the on the be microphone and happy to answer doctor council be happy to answer your questions. questions saw lasagna. >> part of the >> part of the problem problem is -- first of, all the average person in the south, but you're talking about first of all the average, and what they were person in the south experiencing would know what you're talking about, because it wouldn't reach them -- . i >>. there's a conflict in the constitution. or to the people. so when you are when you are proposing these enter proposing these interventions interventions, you're in conflict with that. and -- they didn't throw that out but lincoln observe the constitution because some form

of constitutional government because people still resent. huawei all a left another one up there in case you want to prove. >> i see that. my family dealt with a very. are you on break yeah we mean trading yeah so you take a now >> three questions. >> let me speak to this this matter of what lincoln. we often think of lincoln as a great reconcile or he had a very stiff back we are little

comfortable that being a student philosophy -- actually means, he was not that. he was a very practical politician. but he was not a pragmatist. he believed that, the fundamental of american identity, late in the declaration of independence. and with the declaration of independence says, he made a comment in 1858. as part of his campaign, against stephen a douglas, and illinois for the u.s. senate seat. he said, about half of the people in our country, today, our people for some places. they are people from germany, from france, from scandinavia, from what have you. and, they are not descended from the american revolutionaries. they don't know much about the american revolutionaries, --

the really reading about history. but lincoln said, when they look into that declaration of independence, and when they read there, that all men are created equal. and are endowed by their creator, in inalienable rights. among these are life liberty in the pursuit of happiness. then lincoln they feel that they are fleshed of the flesh and blood of the blood of those old men that wrote of the declaration he believed that principle was a nonnegotiable one. and that the declaration and the constitution acted together. as what he described as being apples of gold in pictures of silver. you can take the constitution and try to sign against the declaration, you can take the declaration transcended against the constitution. they work together. so what is the goal of constitution? it is to realize, the kind of

world that the declaration is describing. a world in which, we understand that we are all created equal. we all possess natural rights. and, that the ideal form of government, is that which gives us the fullest and the fairest and the greatest opportunity to exercise those rights that's for him that was his guiding star with the constitution. when the southern states attempted to secede from the union, what they were ineffectively saying was, yes. lincoln is right. that is where the constitution promises. the constitution promises with the declaration promises. we are getting out. we are gonna go right another constitution. i was asked, several weeks ago, in a program the national constitution center, did i think that reconstruction represented a second american -- ? i said no. the people who are trying to

pull off a second american founding with the confederates. they were trying to re-found the nation on an entirely different basis. they were trying to refound a nation on the basis of race. and blood. we have seen from their perspective, 150 years later, what carnage has been inflicted on the human race. by regimes that appeal to solidarity of race and blood. we've seen that. we as americans, lincoln in particular, calls to us to understand our constitution, and our declaration. as appealing to somebody much more foundational -- to the identity until the rights that we have that we are created -- and enjoying those rights, that is the purpose of constitution. the moment we swear from that and try to create, or right as the confederates, did a constitution that served the purposes of one race or one

blood or one ethnicity or one language or one religion ... the moment we do that we betray not only that declaration but the revolution itself. and our identity as americans. lincoln saw the civil war as the great test of whether a nation, that dared to rest its foundation on the equality of all human beings, could survive. remember what he says it gettysburg, that little place down the road. he says this nation is conceived in liberty and dedicated to that proposition, about all men being created equal. what are we doing here at gettysburg ... this has been the place -- this is been the place where we are testing whether that nation, or any nation can long endure. is that an illusion? is that just, something that we drums up in philadelphia? in 1776? this is the test, lincoln says. this civil war is the test.

well we came through that test. we demonstrated we, demonstrated and blood. we demonstrated that, in fact, this dedication, to this proposition, really does work. you can build a nation upon, it and that nation can live, and the 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, and the life we have lived under the constitution since. every day that we live out that promise, it is a justification of what lincoln was saying. so, lincoln, yes. he was a very practical man. but he was also a man of great ideals. on flexible, and then double ideals. ideals arising, from the declaration of independence. a document he said, that is politically speaking, i have never had. a different idea from. and, we get every one of us would say the same thing today.

>> we need to move on to the next question. >> a question that i have, as a historian, you see around us people with their own versions of history. what do you think, from the standpoint of reconstruction, as a people as a nation, we're obligated to remember about reconstruction and what should we not forget at our peril? >> i'd say there is one major lesson. don't be too quick. reconstruction, as it's conventionally described, occupied 12 years of the nation's life. from 1865, to 1877. looking back on it, one lesson we really ought to get from that is, that was entirely too short of frame reference. the civil war, tore too deeply.

the slave the controversy -- controversy toward too deeply. into the guts of the nation. simply to expect the 12 years was going to suffice. we were too fast, we were two quick. maybe, we were too optimistic. part of that arises of the fact that as i say, we had no templates. we were improvising as we went along. but, one thing we can look back and see, is, we were two quick. we were two quick, we need more patience. we need more resources, we needed to be stronger. we need to be more insistent, in and forcing the statutes and the amendments. and we weren't. we weren't, because, americans are in impatient people. americans are in a patient people. row is impatient to get to tomorrow. and, in some respects -- i also means that we sometimes neglect things.

at the end of the first world war, for instance, we cooperated with our french and british allies, an occupation of germany, that lasted exactly 18 months. big mistake. after that, we could not wait to get home, and leave whatever was going to happen in germany. to happen on its own. well, something did happen on its own. the results were all bad. the kind of future that would have promised peace for europe, after 1918 would have required a lot of application, a lot of patients, a lot of occupation, a lot of time. happily, we learned that lesson. for the second world war. and so, we had extended occupation regimes in germany. and, in japan. that's how i came to be born

japan. my father was a u.s. army. so, there i am. born in japan, part of the occupation. we put a time and effort, we put the marshall plan. to work. we put the resources into making reconstruction, successful. had we learned that permanently know just look at iraq and afghanistan. once again we go in. we tried to do things quick, we try to leave as quickly as we can. the result? not happy. reconstruction is a long and difficult work. we should have learned that, from 1877. we didn't. i'm not convinced that we have learned it, yet. things like this, take a long time. politics, takes a long time. political change, takes a long time. but we are impatient. we want to get to the future, we'll. by being impatient, sometimes we get to futures that we

regret. >> twice, article one, section eight clause 15. says twice in the constitution that rebellion would be -- by the union. why did the civil war go on so long? number two question, in a declaration of independence, it says, all men are created equal. where they really referring to the white -- indians, and their property -- >> people have always raise the question. who is intended behind this declaration that all men were created equal? stephen a douglas, believes he knew the answer. and, he said so in 1858. in response to lincoln. he said, very forthrightly. all men who are created equal, and the declaration were white male europeans of english

dissent. so really, with the creation of independence, according to stephen douglas, really with the declaration of independence often said was, that, all white male descendants of your opinion descendants, of english descendants, are created equal. and, lincoln, objected. he said, that is not what it says. that's not what it says. now, in what respect? are people equal? well, we sometimes talk about equality. in terms of, height. i'm six feet four inches. i don't think you are, i think if i'm eyeballing correctly, you're about six foot one? >> 5:11 and a quarter. shows you what i know. that means you are much more impressive person -- we are not equal. all right? because i'm six foot four, and you are not. but, what kind if equality is that? does that matter, anything?

you might say, it matters a lot in the basketball port. that is not the equality that was being spoken of. the equality, that was being spoken of, is something much more important, much more fundamental. that was the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness now, lincoln says the black man and the white mat may not be equal in every respect, such as height or perhaps their intellectual ability. some people are smarter than others. some people have a higher excuse than others, they're not equal. but there is one respect in which a he in which people are equal and that is the possession of their natural rights. the right that a black man has to eat the bread that he earns by this one of his brow. is the equal of every living man. in 1858, that was sitting out

on a limb, you compared to the audiences lincoln had to talk to an illinois. he will go on and ad that as far as quality is concerned, that covers the earth. who he once made a comment early in his political career talking about extension of the vote. he said, i go to extending the vote to all pay taxes, including women. now, mind you it's the first and the last time he talks about votes for women, but he talks about it, because logically that's where things lie. if you can be a participant in the american system, a quality is the logical conclusion. now stephen douglas pressed lincoln on this, and he said to lincoln, you're talking about only a quality of natural rights, not talking about equal voting rights, you're not talking about eagle white rights to public office, to serving on juries, to giving

testimony in court. but you know something, mr. lincoln, if you crap that fundamental premise that all men are created equal under natural lights, eventually you're going to have to enfranchise white people, and then you can have white people and black people getting married, and there's gonna be black and white equality over the place. douglas said that confident in saying that, that he will be turning the audiences against lincoln. the curious thing is that in that respect, douglas was right. he take lincoln starting point and it will be in fact no place to stop. when you start talking about the equality of natural rights, the line that separates natural rights from civil rights or social rights is a very porous one. once you grab that equality of natural rights people are gonna start pressing through that to all these other kinds of rights, and in that perverse way

stephen a douglas saw the future. it was a future that lincoln believed had to come because it was going to be based on what the declaration of independence set. so all those things were going to come. now with a come right away? no. but lincoln said what you read in the good book, it says be as perfect as your father in heaven is perfect. now does that all mean that we're gonna be perfect just like that? no, it means that we aspire more and more and more towards that kind of spiritual perfection, they're like was as lincoln. said this is what we are doing as a people. our government, our people we are an experiment he said. that's a word george washington set. we are an experiment. we are exploring, we're boldly going where no p no one is gone before. we are on the voyage of a quality and we're following

finding it with that equality means. do we realize it all at once, no. but we are heading in that direction. douglas saw lincoln was going there, and the civil war took is a good long ways towards that. i. >> you mentioned the presence of a little insurgence, the possibility for treatment of confederate soldiers, robert e. lee, and their figureheads were harsh. but what did persist after the civil war was a cultural insurgence. just curious about how recent construction policies are what matter reconstruction could've dealt with this last cause it was so prevalent and persist in many peoples opinion the source of this ideology that persists today in some states? thank you. >> many people in reconstruction did find that ideology. it's extraordinary to read what union veterans have to say

after the war. some union veterans are willing to go to blue and gray reunions and shake hands. we don't know what they say after they shake hands. after they shake hands, they say yes and you guys were a bunch of traders and rebels. there are places after places in which union veterans make it very clear that while they want peace and reckless reconciliation they are certainly never going to concede concede to the lost cause, that somehow the confederacy was fighting for something that was right and noble and true. no, they bitterly opposed that. as one union army veterans meeting after another, in one book after another, in one memoir after another. ulysses grant in his great memories with speak it confederates and say, never did

better manned serve a worse cause. and that one sentence, in that one sentence, he was able to pay tribute to individuals at the same time condemning out of hand the evil of the cause that they had served. and certainly grant who was extremely vigorous and suppressive of the ku klux klan in south carolina in 1870 71 you would he was talking about. the word treason does not sit easily in peoples mouths even today it's an ugly word to use, but i don't have a better one to use to describe would happen in the civil war, order described with the confederate cause that way. but i have to describe it that way cause that's what it was. how does the constitution describe? it loving a war against the united states, giving aid and comfort against its enemies.

surely that is what was doing being done in the civil war. there were people who after the war maintained their fidelity to that good old cause. what did happen no after the turn of the century is that the veterans began to die off one by one is that you had academic historians, those of the downing school, will william archibald dining of columbia, who very deliberately and with a propagandist view in mind created an alternative view of confederacy and reconstruction, especially reconstruction. and the dining school is responsible alarms measure for the view of reconstruction that regards it as some sort of alien imposition by vengeful northerners out to get harmless, innocent southerners. because the da nang school was a school of academic reputation, that is what replicated itself

in college faculty, history department after history department, which then percolates down into the school systems and then gets taught in schools. that would not begin to change until the 19 fifties and the era of civil rights. but i think that the time for the lost cause has long since expire. my grandmother used to tell me stories about how when she was a girl in philadelphia, every memorial day, old union veterans would come. members of the grand old army of the republic, with their blue caps, and blue jackets. they would come and talk to the children in those classes about what they had gone through. they didn't do it just to war stories. the grand army of the republic set up those school time visits as a campaign to make it clear that one had happened in the civil war was a violent attack

on the nation and the principles of the constitution. she learned that, she wasn't taken in by the lost cause. she handed out onto me. the lost cause was a brief bubble of bad interpretation. i think what we have gotten back to emma and i hope that reconstruction can contribute to that is an understanding that reconstruction was a noble effort. that it was an attempt to put in place in the defeated confederacy the principles that should've guided the south before it took it off ramp into oligarchy earlier in the 19th century. it was a noble experiment that instead of being ashamed of it, there are elements of it that we ought to take pride in. and perhaps what we should do our heads about in

reconstruction is not that it was so harsher social fear, but that we did not implemented vigorously and rigorously enough. >> we get a round of applause for dr. kenosha >> thank you very much (applause) thank you scott.

we're gonna hear how both presidents were regarded oh pulling a disregarding the constitution and whether the reputations match their actions in office. >> good morning. thank you all for coming. today we are transitioning in the course from civil war to reconstruction. because of that, it is a particularly good point in this course to talk about a big issue to coast throughout the civil war era that, we need to look at the antebellum period and the civil war and reconstruction to understand. that question is the united